[BUSHdude2000]

Actually, you're equivocating between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence comes in degrees, proof doesn't. And to ask about reasons for believing X is to ask what evidence there is to believe X. That's why we can talk about dispositive reasons, prima facie reasons, compelling reasons, slight reasons, etc. You get those variations in degree because evidence comes in degrees.

Glad you cleared that one up for me.

[Gracey]

Glad you cleared that one up for me.

ConsistentLibertarian is just like those Democrats who took your time to sign the "Challenge Affidavit's." It's a digression tactic to gain attention and throw one off track, when in reality there's no concern for the subject.

I'd say this guy's a leftist troublemaker, here in disguise. He has not answered one question posed to him by me.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Glad you cleared that one up for me." If it helps, that's great, but that post was directed at someone who thought that asking whether X constitues "some reason" for beleiving Y is to ask whether X "proves" Y. It's a good day if we can work up the necessary distinctions to frame a nice clear claim. YMMV, and probably does.